Atomic Weapons Tests: TRINITY through BUSTER-JANGLE
This film was declassified in 1997 after careful sanitization by experts to edit out secrets sensitive to technical information protected by the U.S. Department of Energy -- the successor to the Atomic Energy Commission -- and the U.S. Department of Defense.
The license holder of this film insists that any site (or individuals) linking or displaying through any Internet protocol to this film, to visibly, clearly and fully credit in text this site on any pages linked or independently displaying this film, for providing this film: "Provided by the Nuclear Weapons Vault" Derivations are NOT allowed under any circumstances.
Subject: President Trump
Subject: Great Historical Value
Subject: Put up, or...
"...there have been significant improvements, even though far from perfect, that earn independent protections in quality IN COMPARISON to the nearly unwatchable condition of the tapes released by the government agencies overseeing these films...Don't even entertain criticisms of these truths until you order your own copies and prove to yourselves how bad the quality was..."
To GravitonUSA: One picture is worth a thousand words. The best way to support the above claims would be for you to upload the public domain copies that this work is derived from. That would also provide choice: public domain quality vs. licensed quality.
Subject: its public domain!
A “derivative work,” that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an “original work of authorship.” Derivative works, also known as “new versions,” include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a derivative work or new version.
A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law.
To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a “new work” or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.
The fact is this material is not new and no new material is involved. Just restoring does not qualify for copyright status.
We think the copyright office knows more on copyrights than a friend at that email address.
The other question would be is who are you Gravitonusa and why would you be so defensive and protective of this copyfraud scheme. Are you selling these as your own and trying to enforce illegal copyright claims on these somewhere else?
The point that is clearly being missed here is the copyright law. You keep stating what doe says blah,blah,blah. It makes no difference. Sweat of the brow or mechanical reproductions does not give this copyright status, period. It is what the copyright office says and the courts have already ruled on these matters.
Another key point is that after reviewing the film no copyright is attached to this film and/or conditions of use on the film itself. These could be downloaded from many other websites by others who do not know the copyfraud scheme on no derivitaves etc. A search of the copyright office shows nothing for this film, therefore the assumption and rightly so is that it is in the public domain and free to use. Our lawyers would relish the thought of a copyright infringment lawsuit and the then the countersuit that would follow.
We have no intention of distributing this as we dont see much market in it, but the problem is copyfrauders laying claim to public domain works as their own. We all have a large stake in making sure that public domain materials stay in the public domain.
Oh by the way, where does one order this movie from other than here. Where is the website, etc?
Email the Department of Energy email@example.com to prove to yourself that digitizations and are not Public Domain.
Alexvon is not telling the truth. Don't listen to Alex rant about something about which he does not know the details in blanket statements. PROVE it to yourself and email the Department of Energy address provided. Prove to yourself what the Department of Energy states that digitized derivations are not Public Domain, since there have been significant improvements, even though far from perfect, that earn independent protections in quality IN COMPARISON to the nearly unwatchable condition of the tapes released by the government agencies overseeing these films.
Yes, this IS the government telling that the digitizations are NOT Public Domain. You will clearly find that these digitized films DID involve restorative technologies in improving picture quality, since the tapes are in TERRIBLE condition, and many of them are nearly unwatchable.
It was also intended not to have them be in too good of condition for the sake of discouraging people who take these films and try to sell them as their own productions, as some people have tried from this Archive site on eBay.
The importance of these films is INFORMATION, yet they involve many hours of technical procedures in making them watchable.
Now Alex will likely whine about what he thinks is acceptable or not, when you can otherwise prove to yourselves what the Department of Energy states about the Public Domain status disappearing in quality improvements, because the conditions of these films in the streaming format are superior to those on the tapes from the government.
Don't even entertain criticisms of these truths until you order your own copies and prove to yourselves how bad the quality was under the recently replaced contractor who handled the films for the DoE. Now, after the new year 2007, a new contractor has since replaced them because of these problems. Email them, and prove to yourselves the truth of these words.
Subject: Atomic Test Footage Sanitized for Your Protection
Ratings: Camp/Humor Value: **. Weirdness: ***. Historical Interest: ****. Overall Rating: ***.
Uploaded by GravitonUSA on